Comments on: Reader Poll: James Hansen calls for trials of energy executives, what next?

By: EliRabett

EliRabett — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:09:48 +0000

David Yetter, Miskolczi’s model has numerous fatal flaws. I've put up a number of links, but pretty much all you need to know is that the best trashing took place on the Climate Audit Bulletin Board.

By: PollWhatPoll

PollWhatPoll — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:18:08 +0000

ANY internet poll is meaningless. This poll was meaningless when Anthony posted it. ires random or at least representative sampling – internet polls fail that prerequisite.

Still, this is interesting. Anthony first says:
“please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.”

So, the link gets spread far and wide, and teh polls starts getting a wider ‘mix of input across the blogosphere” and Anthony says this:
A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.

And then changes the permalink!

Further down he says:
“A couple of sites have started a “crash” campaign, it happens.”
So, when people do what you invite, and spread teh URL and opportunity to vvote, its a “crash” campaign?

And then. when a reader points out that one can vote multiple times:
You’ve discovered a weakness in the polldaddy.com software. It pretty much renders the poll useless when a hole like this is found.

Anthony, this is an INTERNET POLL.. It is “pretty much… useless” by definition before it is even posted.

I ldo ook forward to seeing you forward the results, though, Anthony. Currently, the results say that 56% % of respondents support Hanson and favor energy executives being tried or investigated.

REPLY: Thanks for the comment Frank (or is it Steve?), BTW if you’ll check the permalink on this post you’ll see that it is in fact not broken but for about an hour. The link changed when I changed the timestamp on the post to bump the position. Once I realized that WP changed the URL because it was day/month linked in the URL, I fixed that. Of course it wouldn’t matter what I did, if I left it in the same location I’d be criticized for “burying” it in older posts. Also, since you keep changing persona’s on this blog, and have 5 that I know of linked to your IP shown by WordPress, why not choose one persona and stick with it instead of the cloak and dagger routine? It’s hard to treat anything you say as credible when you don’t act credible yourself. Why do you need the multiple personalities? Do you have blog personality disorder?

Be sure to check the results post, which you apparently missed.

By: terrence

terrence — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:18:45 +0000

What do you expect from Hansen supporters? If you don’t like the data, ‘adjust’ it so that you get the result you want.

The Hansen supporters in this poll have learned well from their master! Fudge it , fudge it, fudge it!

By: Pamela Gray

Pamela Gray — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:08:48 +0000

I hate polls. Debate is much more informative and capable of changing one’s views. It is also rather sophomoric and smacks of the new dumbed down News Is Entertainment industry.

By: Leon Brozyna

Leon Brozyna — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:16:58 +0000

Don’t know about the overnight hit, but if you include the weekend in the count, Question 1 surged by approx 25,000.

Quite a change from the early polling when, before the crash party ensued, Question 3 was around 47% and Question 6 around 40% {had to check out Michael Smith’s link above from 26 June with saved images – see: http://15651.home.comcast.net/~15651/Hansen_Poll_Before_Crash_Party.htm}. The results speak for themselves. I believe that first image; its results are about what I would expect from the readers of this site who exhibit a healthy degree of sketicism {and not just about the AGW fantasy}.

So Question 1 went from 1% to 50%. Perhaps we ought to use a GISS algorithm to adjust the results…put in about 1½ million votes each in Questions 3 & 6…that’d put the results more in line to the original pre-crash party. I’m sure Hansen would heartily approve of such tweaking.

By: David Yetter

David Yetter — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:07:10 +0000

Hansen is a hack. If he were honest, he’d admit that all the models have to be rerun with the correct boundary conditions. The atmosphere is not infinitely deep, but all the AGW computer models are based on old solutions to the differential equations governing the greenhouse effect that used an infinitely thick atmosphere as a simplifying assumption.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” recomputes the greenhouse effect with for finite depth atmospheres, and unlike all the baroque computer models that Hansen and his ilk use, gets a model which matches observation for both Earth and Mars without tweaking. And guess what: the predictions from Miskolczi’s model show the greenhouse effect in a finite-depth semi-transparent atmosphere cannot yield the catastrophic effects the AGW advocates use as an excuse for imposing rationing.

By: Bill Illis

Bill Illis — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:41:45 +0000

Since Hansen’s 1988 global warming predictions were so far off the mark, isn’t he the one who is spreading falsehoods here?

By: Pops

Pops — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:05:00 +0000

OOPS! It appears that I’m repeating myself. Sorry about that. You’d better delete one of my comments (and this one). The losers may accuse me of stacking the comments against them. And we don’t want any crying babies, do we?

By: Pops

Pops — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:00:13 +0000

Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.

How to get more than one vote on one computer? Switch it off and on again, or, simply close your browser, disable and re-enable your LAN (internet) connection (always assuming your IP address is regenerated anew when you do so), and restart your browser. How do I know this works? Al Gore told me.

Never mind, Anthony, the fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.

Keep up the good work.

By: Pops

Pops — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:47:19 +0000

Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple, on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.

Never mind, Anthony. The fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.

Keep up the good work.

By: jimsjourney

jimsjourney — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:40:22 +0000

The results of this poll demonstrate the power of the media and the environmental extremists. The logical answer – collect more data and act accordingly – is totally overlooked by people whose minds have already been made up.

My blog covers less controversial issues. Considering the lack of clear thinking on the part of those responding to your poll, I’m not sure they’d be happy reading my thoughts.

Jim – http://jimsjourney.wordpress.com/

By: cynthia31

cynthia31 — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:25:37 +0000

This is really great reading

By: JFA in Montreal

JFA in Montreal — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:28:13 +0000

Anthony.

Next time you post such a poll, you should find a programmer that would program you a special script: to answer the poll, someone should be able to answer a few climatology-101 questions. People who fail should be refused to access to the poll.

Questions should be fished out of a databank of easy climatological questions so that answers could not be memorized by activist morons.

By: doug w

doug w — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:19:45 +0000

I saw this poll last week and “Fire Hansen” barely led “Congress Ignore”. “Charge Oil Execs” didn’t register.

So, the lesson here? Climate realists don’t cheat well.

By: statePoet1775

statePoet1775 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:28:38 +0000

I see Hansen as a Pied Piper of arrogant scientists who think they know enough about reality to leap to conclusions. At least that is my hope.